The Trudeau government has decided to leave young men to fend for themselves in Syria. How will Canadians respond now that it’s happening on our doorstep?

A 16-year-old youth came to Canada last month to claim refugee status. He was detained and placed in isolation for three weeks, and now faces deportation if he’s not accepted as a refugee. His treatment has been described as “shocking” by those involved, especially given that detaining children is supposed to be a “last resort” under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. University of Toronto law professor Audrey Macklin contends there was no justification for his detention.

But is the justification the same as the one the Liberal government applies to young Syrian men abroad?

In November 2015, the Liberal government was hard at work following through on one of its major campaign promises — to accept 25,000 Syrian refugees by January 1, 2016. The target turned out to be a little too ambitious. To accelerate the acceptance process in their own political interests, and in the interest of national security, the government announced that its Syrian refugee policy would prioritize women, children, families and gay people, setting a lower priority on the most at-risk individuals: young, single men.

From a purely practical perspective, the new immigration policy makes a lot of sense. The Liberal government, which marketed itself to voters as a government of action, can accept refugees faster, extend its honeymoon period and maintain public confidence in its leadership.

We’ve iced the cake for the extremists. Now, young men who may have idolized western society have been turned away as damaged goods. These men will be disgruntled, and ripe for the picking.

Canadians can feel safer knowing that the refugees being brought in from Syria aren’t nearly as prone to radicalization as their young male counterparts. And our consciences can be satisfied by giving priority to the people who typically are seen as the most innocent victims of war — women and children.

But the plan is not all ‘sunny ways’ — certainly not for those being left behind in Syria. ISIS and other extremist organizations aren’t indiscriminant in their recruitment outreach. As with corporate marketing, ISIS has a consumer profile in mind — the young, fighting-age man who is isolated from friends, family and society. Guess who we’ve left behind?

Given the callousness and discriminatory nature of our new policy, we’ve iced the cake for the extremists. Now, young men who may have idolized western society have been turned away as damaged goods. These men will be disgruntled, and ripe for the picking.

Many may say: “Canada’s new refugee policy is a drop in the bucket for the Syrian refugee crisis. There are over 4,000,000 refugees and we’re only accepting 50,000!” The Liberal party was elected in part on a promise to restore Canada to its former leadership role in the international community. But what would happen if the international community followed our lead by restricting the intake of young male refugees? We’d end up making the core problem far worse. Extremists would have their pick of hundreds of thousands of disgruntled, fighting-age men. More broadly, we would be perpetuating the Syrian civil war, leaving only combatants behind.

Let’s get back for a moment to that 16-year-old Syrian boy who was detained. For a government that places so much emphasis on gender equality, it sure doesn’t seem to be acting on it. Would that boy have been detained if he were a young woman? Prime Minister Trudeau praises Canada’s tradition of equality — but with the selectivity built into his refugee policy, he’s doing quite the opposite.

When confronted with the reality of these issues at our doorstep, we should ask ourselves what the Liberal government’s quick-fix refugee policy really means. Let’s not betray those overseas in the interest of satisfying our moral appetites. Let’s take care to think through what Canadian leadership truly means.

Cameron Gattinger is a Grade 12 student at Colonel By Secondary School in Ottawa.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.